Michigan secretary of state candidates Jocelyn Benson and Ruth Johnson are dueling over personal financial disclosure. Each seeks political advantage in their hard-fought race. But the winners in this fight will be voters. That will be especially so if other candidates follow suit and voluntarily disclose personal financial information to let citizens see potential conflicts of interest.

In addition, the election-year finance fracas should remind lawmakers of unfinished business. Michigan remains one of only three states in the nation that does not require such disclosure for lawmakers, secretary of state, attorney general, governor, judges or any staff members.

The result for citizens is a conflict-of-interest guessing game. Ordinary folks have no idea if the piece of legislation under consideration, the court case at hand or the cause being pushed would financially benefit an individual public official. That’s a big blind spot for democracy.

This year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed more corporate spending in campaigns opened the door even wider to money in the political process, and therefore to added conflicts of interest. The answer to these expanding possibilities for corruption is more disclosure. Michigan doesn’t have nearly enough disclosure built into its system.

Ms. Benson, the Democratic candidate, released her finance statement last week, using the form required of members of Congress, candidates for federal office, congressional staff, cabinet members, the president, vice president and U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The federal reports show income for individuals and spouses. The reports list assets, liabilities, honoraria, gifts received and other categories of relevant information. The form is the type that should be filed every year by Michigan public officials and certain staff members.

Among other things, Ms. Benson’s form revealed a salary of $125,406 received last year for her work as a law professor at Wayne State University. She and her husband, Ryan Fredricks, have three bank accounts, two worth between $1001 and $15,000 and one worth between $15,000 and $50,000.

In response Ms. Johnson, the Republican candidate, released financial statements, too. The 2009 income for Ms. Johnson, who is Oakland County clerk, was $140,375. This year, she has thus far earned $105,281. Ms. Johnson and her husband, Donald Nanney, a dentist, have six joint accounts. Three of those accounts are worth between $500,000 and $1 million.

Ms. Johnson faulted Ms. Benson for releasing two years of information instead of three, as she had done. Ms. Benson raised questions about Ms. Johnson’s finances because Ms. Johnson has given $150,000 this year to her own campaign.

At least they’re having an informed debate about personal finances. Ms. Benson is to be commended for raising the issue; Ms. Johnson deserves points for her response. Every candidate for state office should follow suit, in the interest of helping the public gauge potential conflicts.

The Center for Public Integrity regularly gives Michigan an “F” for its financial disclosure laws, or lack of them. Idaho and Vermont have shared the failing grade. Michigan, however, is alone among states with a full-time Legislature in having no basic personal financial disclosure requirements.

Lawmakers have shied from this needed bit of sunshine, probably because their own finances would be put under the light. Ms. Benson and Ms. Johnson have helped remind legislators, and citizens, of this important unfinished reform.

E-mail a letter to the editor for publication in print: pulse@grpress.com Please keep letters to less than 200 words and include your full name, home address and phone number.